Arrest cancellation does not mean Yoon's investigation is over

Since the Dec. 3 emergency martial law, unprecedented events in constitutional history have continued to unfold. The investigation of a sitting president on charges of leading an insurrection, the imposition of a travel ban, the court's issuance of an arrest warrant, and the prosecution’s indictment and detention were all firsts since the promulgation of the first Constitution on July 17, 1948. Another unprecedented event occurred on the 7th: the court canceled the president's detention.

Legal professionals frequently remark these days that they need to revisit the Criminal Procedure Act and its commentaries. This is because there is no precedent for carrying out criminal judicial procedures against a sitting president who, despite being suspended from duty due to impeachment by the National Assembly, still has access to state secrets and receives round-the-clock protection from the Presidential Security Service. The request for detention cancellation, filed by President Yoon Suk Yeol’s legal team and accepted by the court, was an outcome few legal experts had anticipated. Some of Yoon’s supporters even argue that the decision is tantamount to an acquittal.

However, Yoon remains a defendant charged with leading an insurrection. The only change is that he will now stand trial without being detained. The court has also not yet ruled on the authority of the Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials (CIO) to investigate insurrection charges. It merely stated that "since there are no clear regulations and no Supreme Court interpretation or ruling, ensuring procedural clarity and addressing concerns over the legality of the investigation is advisable." Naturally, this means Yoon’s guilt or innocence has not been determined.

Although the grounds for re-detention are strictly limited, the court still has the authority to detain Yoon again. If significant new evidence emerges, he could be rearrested. While forgoing an immediate appeal, the prosecution declared that it would "correct matters in the main trial." The court also has the discretion to issue an arrest warrant ex officio. In 2023, the number of arrest warrants issued ex officio by the court exceeded those requested by prosecutors by 10,146 cases. There have even been instances where the court approved a detention cancellation request while simultaneously issuing a new arrest warrant ex officio. If the trial court convicts Yoon and orders his detention, he will be imprisoned again. In short, a single cancellation of detention does not grant him permanent freedom.

Moreover, Yoon’s legal troubles are not confined to insurrection charges. The prosecution is expanding its investigation into allegations that Yoon interfered with the ruling party candidates' nomination process. The ruling party has sought to discredit key witness Myung Tae-kyun as "another Kim Dae-up," dismissing him as a liar. However, unlike Kim, who lacked evidence, Myung has submitted a "golden phone" to prosecutors. This phone contains records of Yoon telling Rep. Yoon Sang-hyun, then chair of the nomination committee, to endorse former lawmaker Kim Young-sun. This evidence contradicts Yoon’s claim that he believed Jeong Jin-seok, the presidential chief of staff, was the nomination committee chairman.

Additionally, the CIO is investigating allegations that Yoon exerted undue influence over the Marine Corps' investigation into the death of Corporal Chae. Colonel Park Jung-hoon, who refused to comply with an order to withhold Chae’s case from higher authorities, was acquitted in the first trial. Meanwhile, the police are investigating Yoon for obstruction of official duties and interference in executing an arrest warrant. Even if the Constitutional Court does not remove Yoon from office, the statute of limitations on all three cases is suspended while he remains in office, meaning he could be indicted after leaving office. The investigation into Yoon is far from over.